1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Quantum of Solace/Casino Royale

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Killick, Oct 26, 2008.

  1. Killick

    Killick Well-Known Member

    Have been seeing commercials galore for the former, and had yet to see the latter (Craig's first Bond effort). So, I decided to rectify that, bought Casino this weekend. Just watched it. Not going to see Solace in theater, now.

    My take: It's a bunch of action, but little of the plot development of earlier Bonds. I've never been a huge Bond fan, anyway, but I've just seen this done better elsewhere (say, Bourne flicks).

    I've heard such huge praise for Casino, too. And that puzzles me. Did I not just "get it"? Is this tack more in line with the Bond books, which I admit I've never read? Am I alone in liking the original (with Connery) better?

    What say you, SportsJournalists.commers?
  2. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    They must have been talking about the first Casino Royale with David Niven and Peter Sellers.
  3. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Active Member

    I say that Connery didn't have a role in the original Casino Royale. Instead, it was a comedy with David Niven, Peter Sellers and Woody Allen. And it was bad. (That was the first Casino Royale movie, anyway --- in 1954, CBS produced a TV version of Fleming's novel as a one-hour episode of Climax Mystery Theater with Bond played as an American agent.)

    Craig's James Bond is a much more realistic Bond than had been played in a long time. The opening action sequences were entertaining and noteworthy from the point of view that typically Bond went through the motions without getting a hair out of place ... and here's Bond getting the hell beat out of him. Once you get past that early scene, you have Craig playing a very gritty Bond, very different from Brosnan and Moore but more in line with the original intent of the novels. I was very impressed with the movie.
  4. Killick

    Killick Well-Known Member

    I stand corrected, fellas. Thanks. It was Niven et al. It's been a while since I've seen it, obviously.

    And I agree the action was pretty cool... just add more plot development and movement, please. I just got a sense that plot was an afterthought. It was action beat, exposition scene explaining why something just happened, action beat, another scene explaining what happened, repeat.
  5. zebracoy

    zebracoy Guest

    Really? You thought Casino Royale was just all action?

    I think it was quite the opposite - and I thought that made the film fantastic. Yes, it was meant to be a "reboot" of the series, which I don't necessarily like, but I do like the fact that it got everything away from the ridiculous plot and special effects of movies like "Die Another Day."

    Craig's a different Bond, for sure. But that was the best Bond movie since "Goldeneye," which I think was the best since "The Spy Who Loved Me."

    The problem is, I think Pierce Brosnan and the special effects era ruined the spirit of the James Bond film.
  6. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    I always found it pretty amusing, just because it's so different, and so silly.

    As for Craig, I like the direction its taken. The good thing is there appears to be an overriding arc they are trying to carry now, which there wasn't in the past.
  7. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    I'll see it first chance I get. I love the reboot and the arc.
  8. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    Barry Nelson was the TV bond...

    And Craig was dark and gritty as Bond... a refreshing change from silliness.
  9. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    The screen debut of James Bond 007, broadcast live on CBS television in the U.S. on October 21, 1954 as part of the "Climax Mystery Theater." Running time: 50 minutes.
    Starring Barry Nelson as Jimmy Bond, Linda Christian as the Bond girl, Peter Lorre as the villain, Le Chiffre, with Michael Pate as Clarence Leiter.

    In a nationality twist, "Jimmy Bond" is a CIA agent, and "Clarence Leiter" is Bond's British ally.
  10. Elliotte Friedman

    Elliotte Friedman Moderator Staff Member

    One movie in, Craig is the best Bond of my lifetime.
  11. Killick

    Killick Well-Known Member

    Don't get me wrong, I didn't think it was crap. On a 10 scale, I'd probably go 6-7. I just expected much more. If it's meant as more of an arc piece, as GB suggests, I may give Solace a shot at the theatre. I'm just not itching to see it, as I was after seeing the trailers.

    One more thought: Where was Bond's "cheek"? I've always liked that, too, and it was much downplayed. Missed it.
  12. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    I think the cheekiness is going to get very, very downplayed. This is taking a much more serious, and darker turn, and I think that's good.

    That part of the series was nice for a while, but I think it got overdone. Once you got through Moore, and then into Brosnan, I was just sitting there thinking, "Har, har, har, didn't see a bad one-liner coming from a mile away there."
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page